Rajendra Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.641/2022 registered at Police Station Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 120-B, 34, 201 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

¶18

2

¶19

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.12.2022 near village Sakri, Bilaspur some unknown persons committed murder of deceased Sanju Tripathi by causing gun shot injuries to him. Incident was reported to concerned police station based on which aforesaid crime was initially registered against unknown persons. Wife of the deceased, in her FIR, stated that her husband was in the business of property dealing and she also raised suspicion on her Devar (husband’s younger brother), namely Kapil Tripathi due to old enmity on account of partition of ancestral land. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that a larger conspiracy has been hatched by the present applicant in connivance with other accused to commit murder of the deceased and in furtherance of the same, present applicant was frequently in touch with other co-accused through his mobile phone and his call details have also been collected. At the time of incident, present applicant was also sitting in one of the cars i.e. Dezire which outmaneuvered the vehicle of the deceased and the accused persons who were sitting in other vehicle caused gun shot injuries to the deceased. Memorandum statement of the applicant has also been recorded. Based on such allegations, offence against present applicant has been registered.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that role attributed to the present applicant is similar to that of accused Kedar Singh who has been granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2025{Special Leave Petition (criminal) No.14739/2024}. He would further submit that applicant is behind the bars since 19.12.2022 and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He would further

¶21

3

¶22

submit that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he helped the shooters to abscond and was sitting in Swift dezire car at the time of incident and mobile sim was seized from him . He would further submit that Police has not collected any evidence to the effect that after the incident, present applicant absconded by arranging flight to Delhi and no such CCTV footage has been procured from concerned Airport Authority. He would further submit that there are no witnesses of the Hotel LePrincess, situated in Mahipalpur wherein, as per the allegations, present applicant stayed after the incident. Hence considering the backdrop, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

Learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and would submit that role attributed to the present applicant is not identical to that of coaccused Kedar Singh who has been granted bail. He would further submit that against present applicant there is serious allegation that he is also a member of the conspiracy which has been hatched to commit the murder of deceased. He would further submit that even on the date of incident, as per the call detail records, present applicant was in touch with the other co-accused. The present applicant was in touch with one of the co-accused namely Prem Shrivas who arranged the contract killers. He would further submit that several calls were made to other co-accused on 14.12.2022 from the mobile number 9993714927 which belongs to the present applicant and he was present in one of the vehicles swift dezire which outmaneuvered the vehicle of the deceased. He would further submit that only because the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, no case is made out for grant of bail when the trial is in progress and serious allegations of

¶24

4

¶25

murder with conspiracy are levelled. Hence considering the backdrop, this is not a fit case for grant of bail.

¶26

Having considered the submissions, nature of accusation and gravity of offence, particularly considering the prominent role attributed to the present applicant which in my opinion is not identical to that of accused Kedar Singh who has been granted bail, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail.

¶27

Accordingly, this application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Avinash

Rajendra Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resham Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Parmila Bai Vs Vinod Kumar Kesri and Ors.

Jai Prakash Singh Rajput Vs Nagar Palika Nigam Durg Anors

Kishore Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Northern Institute of Integrated Learning of Management Education Society Vs Bhupendra Kumar Jain